ON THE TOWN SUCCESS

[jas1234]

Posted: 9/6/15 at 11:10pm

I believe it ran longer than any other production than the original 1944.  Two recent Broadway revivals of the show lost their entire investment.  I assume that since this ran almost a year the investors either made a profit or secured a good return.  And kudos to the entire creative team that made this show a success!

[Jeffrey Karasarides]

Posted: 9/6/15 at 11:33pm

Hopefully, the announced national tour will end up coming to fruition.

[HogansHero]

Posted: 9/6/15 at 11:50pm

They did not get one penny and someone (I assume the Kagans) had to dump $5mil or more on top of the capitalization to keep it open. It was a total flop.

[EricMontreal22]

Posted: 9/6/15 at 11:57pm

If we count critics, then it certainly was the first revival (including an Off-Broadway one I believe in the 50s or 60s) that was an artistic success overall.  But yeah--didn't make a cent. 

[AEA AGMA SM]

Posted: 9/6/15 at 11:59pm

jas1234 said: "I believe it ran longer than any other production than the original 1944.  Two recent Broadway revivals of the show lost their entire investment.  I assume that since this ran almost a year the investors either made a profit or secured a good return.  And kudos to the entire creative team that made this show a success!"

This was a thrilling production, and I'm glad that the producers went full out with it and didn't go "concert style" (i.e cheap) with it. 

However, there was probably pretty much zero return made on the investment. This show unfortunately did not do the kind of business that it needed to, and with such a large production it was undoubtedly very expensive to run. Looking at its entire gross history it actually showed some promise during previews and the first few weeks of its run. Yes, those first weeks were during the typically lucrative holiday season, but there were definitely shows that didn't show nearly as much potential during that same time. However, by the end of January that cash flow dwindled and I would guess that it had two weeks since then where it actually exceeded operating costs, and a small handful where it may have come close to breaking even, but far, far too many where it was nowhere near enough for any investors to receive any checks.

But, congratulations to the cast for turning in such wonderful performances throughout, and to all of the creatives for giving us such a beautifully conceived and executed production. It will probably be a long time before we see a revival of this show that will equal this production.

[CapnHook]

Posted: 9/7/15 at 12:00am

This lost so much money. There won't be a tour but it may play the UK and Australia.

[EricMontreal22]

Posted: 9/7/15 at 12:30am

CapnHook said: "This lost so much money. There won't be a tour but it may play the UK and Australia.

 

"

The tour announcement (which basically had no followup...) also confusingly said it would tour as part of several Bernstein Centenary Celebrations.   Bernstein's centenary would be in mid 2018 (yes, I'm confused.)

[HogansHero]

Posted: 9/7/15 at 12:43am

When the history of 21st C. showbiz is written, this will be the recorded as the poster child of incompetent producing. At not a single step along the way did they make smart decisions, starting with putting this show in a venue where it was doomed to failure ab initio. The quartet of lunatic productions (hopefully there will not be more) that festered in the present decade will be remembered long in the future, and taught in producing classes throughout the world.

[FishermanBob]

Posted: 9/7/15 at 1:15am

HogansHero said: "When the history of 21st C. showbiz is written, this will be the recorded as the poster child of incompetent producing. At not a single step along the way did they make smart decisions, starting with putting this show in a venue where it was doomed to failure ab initio. The quartet of lunatic productions (hopefully there will not be more) that festered in the present decade will be remembered long in the future, and taught in producing classes throughout the world.

 

What will be taught throughout the world is your constant need to bash the OTT producers every time the show is mentioned. Seriously, you've made your point 30 times over. Give it a freaking rest already.

 

 

Updated On: 9/7/15 at 01:15 AM

[haterobics]

Posted: 9/7/15 at 1:33am

The problem is they put the show in that barn to begin with.

 

(I'm going for last reference to Lyric as a "barn" re: OTT, so everyone back off)

[HogansHero]

Posted: 9/7/15 at 2:11am

FishermanBob said: "What will be taught throughout the world is your constant need to bash the OTT producers every time the show is mentioned. Seriously, you've made your point 30 times over. Give it a freaking rest already."

I was responding to a post today by someone who assumed based on the lengthy run that the show made money, and other posts relating to that. While you may have read the facts previously, everyone here obviously has not, and thus it is worth saying again (and not for anywhere near the 30th time). If you don't want to read it, it is easy to skip over it. I think it is important for folks to understand the contours of the subject.

 

[FishermanBob]

Posted: 9/7/15 at 2:40am

HogansHero said: "I was responding to a post today by someone who assumed based on the lengthy run that the show made money, and other posts relating to that. While you may have read the facts previously, everyone here obviously has not, and thus it is worth saying again (and not for anywhere near the 30th time). If you don't want to read it, it is easy to skip over it. I think it is important for folks to understand the contours of the subject."

 

Your first post in this thread achieved your stated goal. Your second post was just mean spirited and unnecessary. One thing to keep in mind regarding the "contours" you are setting out, the lunatic producers are the ones who HAVE the millions to toss away on a passion project if they wish. You're just some anonymous guy on a message board criticizing them for it. If I had to choose, I'd rather be a lunatic multi-millionaire.

 

 

 

 

 

[Steve C.]

Posted: 9/7/15 at 3:20am

I agree with HH; despite the wonderful production itself, cast, sets, orchestration...great. But totally mis- managed for first time producers; spending money to save it. And that house is HUGE! Marketing, terrible I agree completely. But with the audience tonight, all that didn't matter so much. An usher friend said they are getting "some" Christmas show and the Circue du Soleil in May.  

Updated On: 9/7/15 at 03:20 AM

[jas1234]

Posted: 9/7/15 at 7:11am

If these reports are true, I feel sad for the investors who didn't secure any return on the funds they put into the production.  The connection between art and business is such a tricky one.  I'm sure they were proud of the show, but to have lost money over and above the initial funding is not good producing- no matter the quality of the production, it speaks to either vanity or arrogance to keep a production open under those circumstances.  I am happy that the artists on stage were able to display their talents and receive compensation-- as well as the backstage personnel-- but one also should consider that this might have been better off in a resident theatre as a non-profit production, much like the wonderful "On the Twentieth Century" which was right next door.

[Mr Roxy]

Posted: 9/7/15 at 7:19am

Once they announced they would play the Lyric, the chance of the investors getting anything back went to slim & none.

 

Artistic success; without doubt. Financial success I don't think so.

[rjm516]

Posted: 9/7/15 at 9:18am

Can any show succeed in the Lyric? Why would anyone want to go in there? Are there any upcoming shows that might actually have a shot there? 

[haterobics]

Posted: 9/7/15 at 9:58am

Yes, Cirque du Soleil is perfect for that size house, especially if they really customize it to take advantage of the space...

[PatrickDennis92]

Posted: 9/7/15 at 10:03am

I can't speculate as to the motivation, but Howard Kagan does seem to enjoy working well outside the bounds of fiduciary responsibility when it comes to his theatrical investors. Not to say he doesn't also spend his own money; he does. But on the other hand, he still has a responsibility to his other investors. I remember when he produced Natasha Pierre... 1812, and it was such a hot ticket at the time (for Off Broadway) and then it moved, and yada yada-- I was stunned to learn that the show closed ultimately to 100% losses, and in debt to Howard Kagan for I want to say around $1m? I don't recall the exact debt figure, but I do recall the 100% losses. Now, that isn't the end of the world, lots of wonderful projects lose, and lose big-- but then, when I saw that their box office receipts week to week were often at or extremely near full capacity, I was just shocked. Because it's one thing to make a gamble and lose, but his project was basically sold out, meaning it was never ever "possible" for the show to recoup, because the best case scenario was achieved, and lost more than it all.

Anyway, I wouldn't be surprised if On the Town does tour. It is really good. And it would be great to employ the actors, etc-- but I just hope that when he "and his wife" raise the money to do it, that they only take money from people who know that they are more than happy to spend over the moon at their whimsy and as such should understand that this really isn't an investment, as it is a charitable contribution. Everyone who invests in theatre can afford to lose it, but people should be able to make a decision about where they make their gifts and where they make their investments.

[HogansHero]

Posted: 9/7/15 at 12:02pm

@Fishermanbob "I'd rather be a lunatic multi-millionaire.."

Be my guest. Just expect to be called out when you waste resources that end up depriving audiences of shows and/or people of work. I have no doubt that OTT would still be running if it had been competently produced.

@rjm516- In order to succeed at the Lyric, a show has to be a blockbuster that can sustain premium prices over a large inventory (e.g. Wicked) or an audience magnet (e.g., Lion King). So yes there are shows that can succeed there. OTT, a show that has always had trouble succeeding and that is highly unlikely to generate enormous excitement no matter how good it is, is not one of them and every experienced producer and investor in town knew it when the show was announced for the Lyric.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 9/7/15 at 1:06pm

 

This history of the theater is dependent on "lunatic millionaires."

 

I needn't remind anybody on this board, that neither of Shakespeare's theaters ever made a "profit."

 

The Globe Theater was dependent on the contributions given it by Henry Wriothesley, the 3rd Earl of Southampton, who may or may not have been "the Fair Youth of the Sonnets." And the theater at Blackfriars was dependent on Edward de Vere, the 17th Earl of Oxford.

 

At any rate, they were both independently wealthy, and many of Shakespeare's plays would never have seen the light of day without them. 

 

So don't be putting down "lunatic millionaires." There would be no theater without them.

 

 

 

 

[HogansHero]

Posted: 9/7/15 at 1:18pm

@Paljoey That's patently ridiculous. Broadway is a commercial enterprise, not a charity. Its producers have a fiduciary obligation to investors. If the producers of OTT wanted to support theatre, there are plenty of non-profits to which they could divert the dollars burning holes in their pockets. But instead they robbed investors of their investments.

Anything that depends on lunacy is doomed to oblivion.

Updated On: 9/7/15 at 01:18 PM

[adam.peterson44]

Posted: 9/7/15 at 1:30pm

I don't understand the point about nothing being able to succeed in the Lyric unless it is a blockbuster.  I understand that the theatre has more seats than the average on Broadway (2nd-largest capacity, i think, after the Gershwin?).  But wouldn't the theatre owners rather get something than nothing?  Why not lower their rent demand to a level comparable with that of a more medium-sized theatre if there are no blockbuster-style shows on the horizon that could fill a big theatre, and charge the bigger rents only to more successful shows that can sell more seats?  Maybe that way the theatre would sit empty for less of its time (e.g. between Spiderman and On the Town).  I understand that now it has shows lined up to take the theatre, but i am speaking more broadly, not about the specific case of OTT closing.

[ggersten]

Posted: 9/7/15 at 3:58pm

I think the issue with the Lyric is that its size prevents any scarcity - and that lack of scarcity drives ticket prices down.  The average ticket price for On The Town was always low compared to other productions - even where On The Town sold more tickets than the other shows (e.g. King and I and Beautiful on occasion).  You can try cutting capacity down - by closing the balcony.but that's not going to bring the numbers down enough. There was always going to be a ticket available at some discounted price.  Now, obviously Wicked does more than okay in its comparably sized theatre - but you need a show with that kind of cultural impact and that's not something On The Town - especially as a revival - was ever going to reach.  Even with a lesser rent - and presumably On The Town was paying a lesser rent - it's still difficult to sell enough tickets at a high enough price.  At some point, the Lyric owners will want to have something else in the theatre which will pay more rent.    .  

Updated On: 9/7/15 at 03:58 PM

[A Director]

Posted: 9/7/15 at 5:33pm

HogansHero - Did you invest your money in On The Town?  The production brought lots of joy to people who saw you.  Your attitude is like the drunk at party where people are having a wonderful time until you barf in the punchbowl.

[A Director]

Posted: 9/7/15 at 5:45pm

Pal Joey,  You state,

"

I needn't remind anybody on this board, that neither of Shakespeare's theaters ever made a "profit."

 

The Globe Theater was dependent on the contributions given it by Henry Wriothesley, the 3rd Earl of Southampton, who may or may not have been "the Fair Youth of the Sonnets." And the theater at Blackfriars was dependent on Edward de Vere, the 17th Earl of Oxford.

 

At any rate, they were both independently wealthy, and many of Shakespeare's plays would never have seen the light of day without them."

 

What's your source?  The financial records of the Lord Chamberlain's Men/King's Men did not survive, so how can you claim their theatre's did not make a profit?    Southampton had nothing to do with the company.  As for Edward de Vere, at one time, he did lease the Blackfrairs, but he had been dead four years when the King's Men started to perform there. Also, he squandered his fortune.